NASA looking at as few as 8 remaining shuttle flights

vt_hokie · Oct 18, 2005

"The fact is the science advocates have done more damage to NASA's popular support than any other factor." Nonsense. I think the public probably supports programs like Hubble more than it does the "VSE" plan to plant a few more flags and footprints on the moon.

josh_simonson · Oct 18, 2005

Anyone can point their finger at some other government program and blame that for NASA's woes. But in reality, all the programs compete for money equally. If NASA is declining while other programs grow, it is because NASA is failing to promote itself as a better program to fund. Either by bad PR, or by poor performance. The way I took the memo at the beginning of this thread is this: Any cost over-runs in the shuttle return to flight, and program in general, will be taken out of the total number of launches before retirement, rather than being diverted from other NASA programs or (laughing) extra NASA funding. They have a fixed budget, and can do as many launches as is possible within that budget. I'm sure that the white house and OMB consider this second return to flight delay 'poor performance', and NASA is being chastized accordingly.

dobbins · Oct 18, 2005

You are sadly mistaken, the general public has little interest in science that doesn't have a direct impact on their lives. A Science only NASA has too narrow a base of public support to get good funding and is always open to cuts when Conservatives get on a budget kick or Liberals want some new welfare program. NASA needs the broadest base of support possible, and the science junkies constant harping against maned space flight has undermined that support among the majority that don't consider pure science research to be more pressing than "problems down here on Earth".

gpurcell · Oct 18, 2005

Given the conversation Griffin had with Card and the "linear processing memo" requested by OMB, I now believe that the Shuttle will never fly again. Sequence of events: 1) Griffin presents OMB with the linear processing option--8 flights over five years consuming $10+ billion. 2) OMB chokes on its coffee and says WHAT? 3) NASA is directed to spend no funds on Shuttle beyond FY 2007. Perhaps a Hubble servicing mission can be squeezed out of the shutdown budget, but I doubt it. The fight will be for the percentage of NASA's human spaceflight budget that will be dispersed elsewhere in the Federal government. Indeed, the fight ALWAYS was for this chunk of cash. Shuttle/ISS was simply a way to keep the dollars flowing while a new system was developed. I don't think we should be surprised to see a reduction in NASAs budget of 30-40 percent. The failure of RTF to show that the problems with the Orbiters were fixed reaches its necessary conclusion--there's no reason to continue fixing a system that will never (and perhaps can never) fulfil the mission requested of it.

radarredux · Oct 18, 2005

> Nonsense. I think the public probably supports programs like Hubble more than it does the "VSE" plan to plant a few more flags and footprints on the moon./i> I agree with vt_hokie on this one. To date, whoever should do it (NASA, Griffin, the White House, ...?) has not done a good job at selling The Vision or the initial architecture (ESAS) to begin accomplishing The Vision. But the same is true with ISS. NASA is missing someone with the messianic zeal promoting The Vision and The Plan (or the ISS). NASA is missing the writers to create compelling books ("The Case for Exploration"), articles, and responses to critics. NASA is missing the organizers to create and organize a compelling web site for people (general public and scientists) to easily find this information. As a counter example, I can go to the Mars Exploration Rovers site, find an overview including summaries of the key instruments, look at the science summary, goals, and objectives, mission summaries, lists of published papers generated from the mission, etc. And this is from a mission that costs a fraction of what the manned missions have or will cost. I hope all future missions (manned or unmanned) can be at least this complete and organized.

wvbraun · Oct 18, 2005

"NASA is missing someone with the messianic zeal promoting The Vision and The Plan (or the ISS)." I think Griffin is quite 'zealous' with regard to space exploration. Remember the recent interview in the Washington Post where he said that mankind must colonize the solar system? But it's good that he doesn't show his enthusiasm too openly most of the time, otherwise he'd become a laughingstock. "NASA is missing the writers to create compelling books ("The Case for Exploration"), articles, and responses to critics." What about Zubrin?

j05h · Oct 18, 2005

>What about Zubrin? Zubrin is not NASA. At this point, the Mars Society and National Geographic have as good a shot at manned Mars as NASA does. The "NASA Messiah" does not exist, it is just a government office - if space is going to be settled, it will be by people, not "programs". If the government wants to help, and i do thank them for the FAA licensing, etc, but if they really want to help what we need is a new Homesteading Act, and it can not be under NASA. It's sad that Shuttle is going down like this, they were magnificent machines. CEV in 24 months! Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

radarredux · Oct 18, 2005

> What about Zubrin?/i> A Zubrin-type person was what I was thinking about, but the person needs to be strongly aligned with the proposed plan. Zubrin would love to see the shuttle and ISS killed ASAP and the HLV be the first priority (including over the CEV/CLV). Zubrin also has a long history of calling people at NASA "idiots", so I think he comes with too much baggage. A "clean sheet" Zubrin is needed -- someone with passion for the existing plan, someone with a fair amount of technical skills, someone who knows how to cajole the press in order to get air time, and maybe someone who is slightly more telegenic.

wvbraun · Oct 18, 2005

Zubrin is supportive of the VSE although he wants some changes. And he is very much in favour of NASA's new leadership. I don't think there is anyone out there who can get the message across in a better way. Zubrin is the most charismatic figure in the space movement today IMHO. That being said I agree that NASA PAO can still do a better job.

shuttle_man · Oct 18, 2005

Well my line manager told me an hour ago the story is crock of &%$#@!, frabricated, not true. We could fly 20 mission on 10 billion, and have change. With the same token, I don't see us managing 19. />CEV in 24 months! < If the STS goes down you'll still not get that before time. The money not recycle at NASA and there's no magic machinary to get the CEV built faster.

SpaceKiwi · Oct 18, 2005

I don't know about 'charismatic'. He is certainly media-pegged as a one-issue advocate. Perhaps that switches off some people from the message but, if there are rewards for the 'brute-force-cracker' approach, he is the one likely to reap them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

frodo1008 · Oct 18, 2005

I agree totally!! If the shuttle does not fly again the budget hawks in congress will just take the money saved from NASA's budget! No ifs, ands, or buts! What is really stupid is that the budget hawks could take ALL of NASA's budget and it would only amount to some 3% of the total current federal deficit!! If the hawks want to go after what is really causing the federal deficit then go after the tax cuts, the wars in the Middle-East, and the military budget. Reasonable cuts in these items alone would balance the budget once again!! I don't know how many times I have to say this but, NASA IS NOT AN EXPENSE OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET, IT IS AND "INVESTMENT" IN THE FUTURE OF BOTH THIS COUNTRY AND EVEN MANKIND!!!!!!!!

wvbraun · Oct 18, 2005

"Well my line manager told me an hour ago the story is crock of &%$#@!, frabricated, not true." As far as I know nasawatch has very seldom been wrong on a big story like this. The Griffin memo is obviously authentic...

gpurcell · Oct 18, 2005

Just to clarify, that $10B in my post above is NOT from Nasawatch but just my SWAG (assuming $2B per year).

CalliArcale · Oct 19, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The "NASA Messiah" does not exist, it is just a government office - if space is going to be settled, it will be by people, not "programs". If the government wants to help, and i do thank them for the FAA licensing, etc, but if they really want to help what we need is a new Homesteading Act, and it can not be under NASA. <hr /></blockquote> I've been thinking about it, and it has all sorts of very serious political implications on the international level that I don't think are wise. The Homesteading Act encouraged settlement of land that was already United States territory. The Moon, Mars, and so forth are nobody's territory right now. With all the accusations about American imperialism going around and feeding Islamic terrorism, I'm not sure it's such a good idea to go get colonial right now. Realistically, nobody could stop us from doing it, but it has bigger implications than you might think. I don't think the political structure is ready for full-scale colonization yet (to say nothing of the technology). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

dragon04 · Oct 19, 2005

Can't agree with that logic, Calli. The Chinese in particular are planning on their own space station, for example, rather than participate in the ISS. Their manned space efforts will not be interactive with an already "in place" space program that involves a lot of international co-operation. To me, that's more than enough reason to get American flags planted throughout the solar system. Unfortunately (fortunate for the Chinese), we're going to endlessly diddle around with the STS and ISS for no better reason than the fact that NASA has never learned when to cut its losses and move on. Time and money will continue to be wasted and we'll be watching Taikonauts on TV do the things that Americans should be doing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

radarredux · Oct 19, 2005

> As far as I know nasawatch has very seldom been wrong on a big story like this. The Griffin memo is obviously authentic.../i> AW&ST has picked up on the story as well: Oct 10, 2005 issue, pp 31-32. The story isn't exactly the same, but there is a lot of similarity: <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> ...the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) was asking NASA what would happen to its spending if space shuttle processing were held to only one shift per day. The short answer, it appeared, would be that NASA couldn't keep its promises to launch all the partners' hardware. The issue has not been decided within the Bush administration, which will continue debating it internally until the U.S. space agency's Fiscal 2007 budget request is set for release early next year. But the OMB query shows the uncertainty clousing international cooperation as NASA tries to push human spaceflight beyond low Earth orbit to the Moon and beyond. ... At first blush, program insiders say, a dozen flights would be more likely under the single-shift processing schedule that could be funded if the OMB decides not to free monies for the more ambitious plan. NASA has a shortfall of about $2 billion if the shuttle program is to meet an 18-flight schedule, and the OMB's question suggests that the White House is still undecided about covering it.<hr /></blockquote>

radarredux · Oct 19, 2005

> Zubrin is supportive of the VSE although he wants some changes./i> Here is a recent email by Zubrin: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mars-chicago/message/2756 In it he includes the following priorities: <ol type="1"><li>No more Shuttle missions except Hubble repair.<li>Shift Shuttle funds immediately to accelerate development of HLV, CEV, and Moon-Mars technology.<li>Set the goal, and go for it: Moon by 2012, Mars by 2016. </li></li></li></ol> He also reiterates a point he has made a number of times: The current roadmap has no significant progress to the new part of the vision until after the next administration takes over, thus making it a target for cancellation (it is easier to cancel a program that hasn't started than one that is underway).

dobbins · Oct 19, 2005

I'm a long term critic of the shuttle and the ISS, I was delighted when Griffin admitted they were blunders, I would love to see the funds that are being spent on these programs made available for the VSE. However I also realize that we can't simply dump the Shuttle and the ISS. In the gap between Apollo and the Shuttle NASA lost a lot of talent. The same would happen if we abruptly canceled the Shuttle and had no program until such time as the CEV was ready to fly. You can't just call up the labor pool and tell them to send a few thousand space technicians over to start work next Monday. These people have high skill levels and you can't simply replace talent like that on a moments notice in an stop and start program. We learned that lesson at the end of Apollo, and it's a mistake we don't need to repeat. If it had been up to me I never would have agreed to build the ISS, it's the wrong station in the wrong orbit. However we did sign those contracts and we have a moral and legal obligation to our international partners. We need to live up to the agreements we made with them if for no other reason to maintain our credibility with the other space fairing nations. If we simply dumped our partners do you think any of them would consider us a reliable partner for an international Moon or Mars base? Mr. Zubrin simply isn't being realistic when he makes suggestions like that. What he's calling for would actually make it harder for us to get to the Moon and Mars.

frodo1008 · Oct 19, 2005

If we do what Zubrin is advocating here there will be a price to be paid. That price is that I am as certain that the sun will rise tomorrow the the United States will NEVER be able to take place in a cooperative venture with the rest of the world, in space at least! I mean would you then trust us to get your country into something and then see it through? There are literally billions of dollars worth of equipment already bought and paid for deligated to go on the ISS, awaiting transport by a shuttle that will never fly again, just sitting at the Cape in Florida. What is to be done with this situation? The only vehicle on the hoizon for the next five years at least to take this equipment to the ISS is the shuttle. Perhaps we could just turn this equipment over to the Russians, and let them try to deal with it. Of course, if I was then head of the Russian space agency I would then insist that if the US wants its astronauts to go to the ISS that they pay the going rate, the same as any other tourists! In the long run I even think that this kind of action could even snowball into other areas of cooperation, such as the fight againts international terrorism. And why not, why trust the US? I say these things not because I am un-patriotic, but because I AM!! If the busget hawks in congress want to try to balance the federal budget by cutting NASA's budget (and if you think that any savings taken from not flying the shuttle anymore, and not finishing our obligations to the ISS are going to end up pushing the VSE any faster, then I have a bridge in Brocklyn I want to sell you!) they should realize that the current budget deficit would eat up 100% of the entire descretionary part of the federal budget, including not only 100% of NASA's budget but also 100% of their new energy and transportation pork barrolls!! The only reasonable way to bring the federal budget back into balance is to get out of the Middle East entirely, a

dobbins · Oct 19, 2005

"The only reasonable way to bring the federal budget back into balance is to get out of the Middle East entirely, and then cut the military budget accordingly, and return the tax revenues to the federal budget the president Bush has given mostly to the wealthy of this country." I would suggest you take a look at the federal budget, the department that is getting the most funds is the department of Health and Human Services, not the Department of Defense. H&HS has a budget that is over 30 times the size of NASA's budget, they spend more money in two weeks than NASA does in a year. They aren't the only Welfare agency either HUD has a budget that is many times the size of NASA's budget and the Department of Agriculture also has a huge budget mainly due to food stamps. These huge expenses are a direct result of "trying to solve problems down here instead of shooting the money into space". The post Apollo budget cuts were originally intended to transfer funds from NASA to these programs "to solve problems". Over 30 years later the size of the programs has mushroomed to many times what was taken from NASA and "the problems here on Earth" still haven't been solved. These Welfare agencies are eating more money than the war and the tax cuts combined. H&HS alone has a budget that is larger than the entire deficit. If just 3% of H&HS's budget is squandered on waste and fraud then that is more money than NASA's entire budget.

n_kitson · Oct 19, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Time and money will continue to be wasted and we'll be watching Taikonauts on TV do the things that Americans should be doing<hr /></blockquote> When it comes to manned space exploration I'm somewhat confused as to why the nationality of the space traveler matters. If one supports manned exploration, why does it matter whether that is done by Russians, Americans, Chinese, or even - horror of horrors - Canadians? At the end of the day it is exploration by the human race and we all get access to the information returned. In fact, no one country can afford to sustain a continued manned presence in space to address all the interesting targets. Instead of a mad ultra-expensive scramble to plant a national flag on every dead rock around, wouldn't it be more interesting if we had, say, a useful permanent American moon base, a permanent Chinese Mars base, and a permanent Russian base on Demios or Phobos? The latter gives us a focused sustainable presence on a number of footholds.

josh_simonson · Oct 19, 2005

Shoot, keeping old people around is a luxury, since they're mostly unproductive. How about cutting social security and medicare and replacing them with a euthanasia program. That'd get us to mars real quick. 8^P Even when we were running a tax surplus in the late 90's, NASA hardly got a raise. Their problems cannot be attributed to other programs or the deficit. America is paying what it is willing to pay. The only way to get more funding is to get the public interested, or gain budgetary credibility that money won't simply be dumped down a black hole like X33, OSP....

j05h · Oct 19, 2005

>Instead of a mad ultra-expensive scramble to plant a national flag on every dead rock around, wouldn't it be />more interesting if we had, say, a useful permanent American moon base, a permanent Chinese Mars base, />and a permanent Russian base on Demios or Phobos? The latter gives us a focused sustainable presence on a number of footholds. Why is it important that these resources be national, either? As individuals, we have much better chances to visit commercial facilities - be it corporate nitrate mine or National Geographic observatory. For this to happen, we need some form of reliable transportation, both to LEO and beyond. NASA through a temper tantrum over Dennis Tito's flight, this does not point to them being a reliable partner. They can't do a lunar base (for instance) with the current budget, but don't play well with others, so have trouble holding coalitions together. Yes, it is exploration is important. Commerce is equally important, it's why the New World made sense and why comsats work. We need to find ways to make longterm human spaceflight pay, something NASA simply can not do. It is up to us. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

vt_hokie · Oct 19, 2005

"...and why comsats work." Even if just barely! There are so many malfunctioning pieces of crap up there hanging by a thread, it's ridiculous. But I digress! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

NASA looking at as few as 8 remaining shuttle flights

vt_hokie

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

dobbins

Guest

gpurcell

Guest

radarredux

Guest

wvbraun

Guest

j05h

Guest

radarredux

Guest

wvbraun

Guest

shuttle_man

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

wvbraun

Guest

gpurcell

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

dragon04

Guest

radarredux

Guest

radarredux

Guest

dobbins

Guest

frodo1008

Guest

dobbins

Guest

n_kitson

Guest

josh_simonson

Guest

j05h

Guest

vt_hokie

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page